ILoveYourVibes wrote: » If you are making 3million from gaming 7 days a week its good. If you are making zilch from gaming and gaming 7 days a week its bad. Simples.
Irish Guitarist wrote: » Years ago your brother or sister would be playing Centipede or something on the Atari and you'd have to wait patiently for them to die so you could have a go. Now people go on Twitch to watch complete strangers play a game and even donate money to them. I don't get it but if people want to be stupid that's up to them.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » Really weird ..i am not getting at people who do twitch at all good for them i hope it all goes from strength to strength any new industry is good industry BUT can you imagine doing this in real life? Paying or donating money to watch someone play a game?
Tell me how wrote: » People pay money to watch movies, to watch sports, to listen to music. Twitch is just a different interface. The content is still 'art' albeit of a new nature. I can see that much. I'm not saying I rate it as an art worth paying for but I can see how some are interested in paying to watch.
Irish Guitarist wrote: » If you want to say games are art fair enough, but the artist would be the person that created the game not the person who plays it. That's like calling someone that watches a film a director.
Muahahaha wrote: » My god $2.4bn is some amount of revenue, it puts it up there with elite sports. Whats the general premise of the game, Ive only watched it for a minute on Twitch and it was hard to follow but seems like you're building a tower and fighting opponents at the same time or something? Its mad how popular it is, I know a few parents whose kids are in it up to their necks. They cant get them out of the house. I know from my own gaming days how addictive it can be but back then it was just you in your living room against the computer, when its you against everyone else with prizemoney and prestige at stake it brings it to a whole new level.
Tell me how wrote: » But, these people (players) don't think they are stupid. They can point to the potential rewards as their justification. Very hard for a parent to change that mindset in a child who wants to devote so much time to it.
paleoperson wrote: » That's like saying kids watching a lot of football and buying merchandise for it can point to potential rewards as justification the fact that most premier league players could buy their house with one week's wages. Or that people buying and watching a lot of movies/tv can point as justification for it how much money there is in acting.
Tell me how wrote: » Yes, a kid could point to pro footballers and say it is worth it, but, they're not playing football as much as some are playing games.
Tell me how wrote: » No, it's not like watching a lot tv being justified by money in acting. If the child was trying to act incessantly, they could claim it might ultimately be worth it.
paleoperson wrote: » So the hell what? Many kids play football for hours a day. But so what if some of them are playing Fortnite more than they're playing football, what difference does that make to anything? Is it going to increase their chances? No, not if all the other kids are doing the same. It's exactly like watching a lot of tv. Millions and millions of kids dream of being actors or directors. They could justify it just as easily as they justify watching Fortnite. If not as many kids do it then they'll have less competition won't they. I can't believe I'm involved in such an utterly ridiculous argument. Kids can NOT "justify" their watching of fornite in that way period, and they especially can't justify giving "donations" to people for it.
Jody Smoke wrote: » If people want to play video games that's fine but E-Sports are not sports. They are not sports for the simple fact that they are not real. It doesn't actually happen, in every other sport something happens in reality. You strike a golf ball/tennis ball/football the ball actually moves through the air and something happens. Everything in an e-sport is based on whether a computer works and is programmed correctly, and the people who porgramme the game do 99% of the work in any e-sport. There not sports and if people want to play video games that's fine but I wish the media would stand up to the nonsense of them being treated as sports and have a separate section for them and not have them in the same sections as genuine sports,
Tell me how wrote: » The same thing was probably said about cricket/football/Athletics etc being different to the traditional sports of hunting and fishing.
Jody Smoke wrote: » E-sports nothing happens in reality, it's a simulation based on a computer programme. You strike a cricket ball with the the bat the ball moves. You kick a football the ball moves. You move your legs you move.
Tell me how wrote: » I think you're missing my point. The concept of sport previously evolved from what it was understood to be and could do so again. I don't like the idea of empty playing fields while people play 'sport' online, but I'm afraid I can see such a development happening all too easily.
chris_ie wrote: » If millions of people (its not just kids) watch people play games, then its an form of entertainment. Personally, I dont understand why people would pay to watch cricket, (or even watch cricket for free!) but that doesn't mean I'd call them stupid for doing it. It just doesn't interest me. To each their own. There are things that each generation does that the previous scoffs at.
Tell me how wrote: » Agreed on generational differences being natural and frequent. I'm more wondering about the qty very young gamers are playing and wondering is it acceptable or a problem which hasn't shown how damaging it is just yet.
Tell me how wrote: » I think you're missing my point. The concept of sport previously evolved from what it was understood to be and could do so again.
paleoperson wrote: » Don't worry about that, we understand your attempt at a point very well. It's just that it's totally invalid. You're the one who isn't understanding points other people are making. Cricket is clearly a sport, it could not possibly be interpreted as anything other than a sport by modern usage of the term. It's a lot more of a sport than hunting or fishing. It's a ridiculous statement. And don't even bother coming back saying how in medieval times hunting and fishing were considered the "sports" by old english, we all know what you're talking about and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Don't worry about us not getting it at all, I would worry more about your own understanding.
chris_ie wrote: » Thats a good point too, we havent really reached a time where kids who've had video games and internet from a very early age have reached old age yet. I've played games when I was a kid (I'm 36) but it was back in the day of MegaDrives and Super Nintendos. Now with online gaming and all the rest it seems a bit more addictive. I still play the odd time, but just the odd game of FIFA here and there. Myself and my mates were chatting about it one night. Years ago we used to gather at each others houses and play FIFA, was great craic. We all played online for a while then but that died off. We were just saying how online was nowhere near the craic of meeting up and gaming. Although we are older now too so that might play into it
Tell me how wrote: » I still think the age profile of some young gamers mean they don't realise the potential damage extensive gaming could be doing to them.
Sabre0001 wrote: » Fortnite isn't a game that I have followed particularly closely. I've given it a try, but my experience was nothing happening for ages followed by being killed by the first person I encountered. Never got to grips with the building element in the short time I played it, which seems to be a massive part of it.
Greyfox wrote: » If there under 18 that's down to the parents to understand there kids hobby and make sure there not gaming too often.
